Comments on: Remote Collaboration with Creative Review

By: cat veterinarian

cat veterinarian — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:06:26 +0000

cat veterinarian

ka-ka-sh-ka 1768668 Master information for cat veterinarian.

By: Mark McGuinness

Mark McGuinness — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:03:44 +0000

Thanks Beeker, glad you liked the black box.

Re CR, I think the magazine cover itself is much stronger than the wrapper - ‘Mother Paid £15,000 to edit this edition’. As soon as you read that, it sets off all kinds of questions in your mind - Why did they do that? Should they have done it? Was it ethical/clever/stupid? Did they get ripped off? The same questions apply to Mother and Creative Review. Like a ‘Question Mobile’ that hangs there in your mind…

By: beeker

beeker — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:12:38 +0000

oh and i just looked up your bit Mark (hadn’t read the WeFail article) and it’s great. you get a whole black box to yourself. richly deserved.

By: beeker

beeker — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:31:49 +0000

I tried to gently make the point that they got it wrong. I’m doing the zen blogging thing where you’re not angry or rude at people. Not sure why. Probably because I love CR normally. So my main beef is that it’s a bit stupid.

Whichever way I look at it it’s just not logically clear to me that an advertising agency sponsoring a magazine makes my mum a whore.

By: Mark McGuinness

Mark McGuinness — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:45:06 +0000

Hi Tom,

I assume you’re talking about the wrapper for the February ‘Sell your Soul’ issue edited by Mother. I agree it’s provocative. As to whether it’s ‘necessary’ - well it wouldn’t be my style. I do think the issue as whole raises some good questions about ethics and the commercial side of creativity.

Edit: I see you’ve seen Beeker’s seen it too.

By: TomLR

TomLR — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:00:15 +0000

Hi Mark.

Is this the CR that just told me that my mother is a whore ?

Was that really necessary ?